NEET Undergraduate 2026 Row: Six NEET UG 2026 candidates have approached the Supreme Court alleging discrepancies between the answers they had originally marked in their OMR sheets and the copies of the OMR sheets made available by the National Testing Agency (NTA) after the declaration of the examination results.
The matter was mentioned for urgent listing before Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Tuesday, with the petitioners seeking an early hearing before the commencement of the counselling process.
Mentioning the writ petition, the counsel submitted that the case concerns six students who have secured scores above 600 and 650 marks but claim that the OMR sheets now reflected by the NTA differ from what they had actually marked during the examination.
What Do The Petitioners Allege?
"This writ petition concerns the NEET examination. Six students have alleged that what they originally marked in the OMR sheets and what the NTA is now giving them are different," the counsel submitted. The counsel argued that although the NTA had provided a window for candidates to raise objections regarding the OMR sheets, the discrepancy surfaced only after the declaration of the results.
"The NTA had given a challenge period to raise factual corrections regarding the OMR sheets. At that point of time, the OMR sheet was correct. But after declaring the result..." the counsel submitted, contending that the discrepancy arose subsequently.
"Go To Supreme Court, We Don't Bother": Petitioners Allege NTA's Response
When the CJI asked if the petitioners approached the authorities, the counsel replied that there was no response to the emails sent and visits made by them. "We even visited the NTA office. The officers directly said, 'Go to the Supreme Court. We don't bother,'" the counsel alleged, describing the alleged lack of cooperation from the agency's officials.
Why Could No Objection Be Raised Earlier?
Justice Joymalya Bagchi, who was on the Bench with the Chief Justice, asked the counsel whether the students had filed objections. Responding, the counsel reiterated that no effective objection could be raised because the discrepancy was not reflected when the objection window was open.
"At that point of time, the OMR sheet was not uploaded. This is the fault of the NTA side. Counselling will start," the counsel submitted, urging the Court to take up the matter urgently.
What Did The Supreme Court Say?
The CJI agreed to list the matter for an urgent hearing, acknowledging the petitioners' concern that the counselling process is set to begin soon and that a timely resolution is necessary before candidates proceed further in the admission process.